Particle behavior in the turbulent boundary layer. 1.

Motion,
deposition, and entrainment
D. Kaftori, G. Hetsroni,a) and S. Banerjee
Department of Chemical and Nuclear Engineering, University of California Santa Barbara,
Santa Barbara, California 93106
(Received 21 April 1994; accepted 31 January 1995)
The motion of solid particles near the wall in a turbulent boundary layer was investigated
experimentally in a water flume by flow visualization techniques and by LDA. The particles were
of polystyrene (specific density -1.05) with diameters ranging from 100 to 900 pm. Results show
that particle motion, as well as entrainment and deposition processes, are controlled by the action of
coherent wall structures, which appear to be funnel vortices. The behavior of the particles is
consistent with the motion and effects of such vortices. The vortices appear to cause the formation
of particle streaks near the wall, to create suitable conditions for particle entrainment, and to assist
in particle deposition by conveying them from the outer flow to the wall region. 0 1995American
Institute of Physics.

I. INTRODUCTION were identified by means of oxygen microbubble tracers vi-

The behavior of solid particles in the wall region of a
turbulent boundary layer is of importance for the understand-
ing of deposition, fouling, entrainment, and resuspension in
industrial and environmental processes. Though the mecha-
nisms governing such phenomena have been extensively
studied in the past, as discussed later, they are not completely
understood. For example, recent work in our laboratory by
Rashidi et a1.l indicated that even average particle volume
fractions of -10m4 lead to significant modulation of turbu-
lence. The effect appears to arise from how particles, sized
up to a few wall units, interact with the coherent structures in
the wall region. (Wall units are nondimensionalized by the
kinematic viscosity and friction velocity.) Very little is
known about this phenomenon.
Coherent wall structures, which may be defined as per-
sistent flow patterns with a larger lifetime and/or spatial ex-
tent than the turbulence integral scale, have been observed
by many investigators. Three main types of structures have
been reported. One type consists of high-velocity regions and
low-speed streaks very close to the wall. The second are
streamwise and quasistreamwise vortices, and the third type
are “active” periods, generally referred to as “bursts,” which
consist of sequences of ejections from the wall layer into the
outer flow and sweeps of fluid from the outer region toward
the wall. The term “outer how,” as used here, denotes the
area where the velocity gradient becomes relatively small. In
essence, it is the region where the distance from the wall is
greater than 30-50 wall units.
Recently, Kaftori et aLL3 suggested that these three
types of patterns are all manifestations of one underlying
large-scale structure. The structure is of a form of a stream-
wise vortex that expands outward from the wall. The shape
of the vortex is that of an expanding spiral, wound around a
funnel that is laid sideways in the direction of flow, as illus-
trated in Fig. 1 (from Kaftori et &a). The funnel vortices
‘)Permanent address: Department of Mechanical Engineering, Technion, Is-
rael Institute of Technology, Haifa 32000, Israel.
sualized by high-speed video. They could also be found in
flow fields generated by direct numerical simulation, and
their existence was supported by conditional sampling of
LDA data. They are reminiscent of the “double-cone” ed-
dies, suggested by Townsend4 from autocorrelation consider-
ations, and can account for most, if not all, of the turbulence
wall structures that have been observed over the years. The
upstream part of a funnel vortex appears to be what is usu-
ally referred to as a streamwise (or quasistreamwisej vortex.
At some point the vortex begins to oscillate in an expanding
spiral, possibly in a manner similar to the process of vortex
breakdown (although this is still speculative at this point). Its
downstream part are the ejections and sweeps shown in Fig.
1. The part of the vortices close to the wall (i.e., the sweep
portions) form high-speed islands and the fluid between them
are the low-speed streaks. The “islands” are distributed
somewhat randomly very close to the wall. This is also seen
in numerical simulations. The vortices do not necessarily ap-
pear in pairs (counter-rotating or not), but on the average
there exist equal numbers of vortices rotating both clockwise
and counterclockwise. The average spanwise spacing of 100
wall units between the low-speed streaks is possible because
the high-speed islands are distributed rather randomly, and
are shorted in the streamwise extent than the -1000 wall
units streamwise extent of the low-speed streaks. A sche-
matic of possible arrangements that could lead to such a flow
pattern near the wall is shown in Fig. 31 of Kaftori et al.’
Regardless of the exact form of the coherent wall struc-
tures, it appears that they may affect particle motion near a
solid boundary, as well as the entrainment processes. Grass,5
for example, showed that fine sand particles form streaks in
the viscous layer. The streak spacing was approximately 100
wall units, which is the same as the spacing between low-
speed streaks in the pure fluid. The speculation that the two
types of streaks coincide was later confirmed in our labora-
tory by Rashidi et al.,’ who used flow visualization with mi-
crobubble tracers, and by Pedinotti et al.,6 using direct nu-
merical simulation. In addition, Pedinotti et al. also found
that the tendency of particles to accumulate in low-speed

Phys. Fluids 7 (5), May 1995 1070-6631/95/7(5)/i 095/l 2B6.00 0 1995 American Institute of Physics 1095

Copyright ©2001. All Rights Reserved.


a f-3
I
FIG. 1. A funnel vortex.
streaks depends on their nondimensional time constant [de-
fined in Eq. (5)]. Particles with a nondimensional time con-
stant -3 had the highest tendency to form streaks, while the
distribution of particles with higher or lower time constants
was more uniform. Hetsroni and Rozenblit7 found, experi-
mentally, a similar trend in a horizontal flume, where par-
ticles of the order of ten wall units accumulated in the low-
velocity streaks, while particles larger than about 30 wall
units were more randomly distributed on the bottom.
Cleaver and Yates.’were perhaps the first who attempted
to link the bursting phenomenon and the rate of particle en-
trainment from the wall in horizontal flow. They based their
model on statistical aspects of the occurrence of bursts in
space and time, assuming that the bursts create sufficient lift
to entrain particles. The details of particle interaction with
the bursts were not considered. Their results were in qualita-
tive agreement with the limited experimental data that were
then available.
Sumer and Oguz” investigated particle behavior during
bursts using photographic observations, and measurements,
of single particles in an open channel. They saw that the
particles moved along the bottom of the channel, and were
occasionally ejected into the flow up to heights of 100-200
wall units or more, depending on density. The particles then
settled toward the wall region. They noted that the average
streamwise velocity of particles on the way up, during an
ejection, was smaller than the average streamwise velocity
on the way back down, which led them to speculate that an
ejected particle was within a low-speed streak prior to the
ejection. However, it should be noted that since the velocity
increases with distance from the wall, almost any particle
that is lifted from the wall is likely to have a lower velocity
than a particle which has been in the outer region for some
time. Even if a particle originated from a high-speed region,
where its velocity could be higher than neighboring regions,
it would still have a lower velocity than a particle that is
settling from the outer region.
Yung et aLi also investigated the role of turbulence
bursts in the re-entrainment process of particles from the
viscous layer. Using flow visualization, they observed that
when a particle was smaller than 1.3 wall units, it was hardly
ever affected by the bursts and concluded that bursts do not
penetrate a layer of such thickness. They also noted that
particles in the viscous layer lined up in streaks, but did not
move continuously along the bottom. Instead, particles re-
mained stationary for a short time and then began to move
1096 Phys. Fluids, Vol. 7, No. 5, May 1995
Copyright ©2001. All Rights Reserved.
again. The motion of a particle usually started by rolling,
after which it was lifted up and moved in small jumps. The
ejection angle in these jumps was approximately 5”. From
the small angle they concluded that the horizontal drag force
is more dominant, in particle entrainment, than vertical lift
forces. It should be pointed out that this observation is some-
what contrary to the hypothesis that particles are entrained
from low-speed streaks by wall ejections. This is because
wall ejections are considered to be a low-speed fluid while a
strong streamwise drag force must be associated with a high-
speed region.
Although particle deposition has usually been considered
in terms of diffusion and gravitational settling, attempts were
made to link this process to the effects of wall structures.
Cleaver and Yates,rr for example, suggested a model where
the deposition rate was calculated by assuming that particles
are convected to the wall by downsweeps. The model
showed agreement with the then available experimental data.
Recent studies substantiate this hypothesis. McLaughlinr2
examined aerosol particles deposition in a vertical channel,
using numerical simulation. He found that particles that are
less than 60 wall units from the wall may be captured by
organized structures and brought to the wall. The Saffman
lift force was found to have no effect on particles outside the
viscous layer. Brooke et ~1.~~also conducted direct numeri-
cal simulations and found that particles are brought to the
wall by the same eddies that control turbulence production.
They noted, in addition, that particles accumulate in the low-
speed streaks, and that when particles are smaller than one
wall unit, they may be captured in the viscous layer and not
be re-entrained into the flow.
While much is now known about particle motion in the
wall region, there are still many outstanding issues. For ex-
ample, it is not known how particles are lifted off the wall
and what types of structures they are associated with. Nor is
it clear how they interact with such structures, and perhaps
modify them. The problem is interesting, not only because a
better understanding of the phenomenon can lead to mecha-
nistic models, but also because low average particle concen-
trations may be effective in controlling turbulence processes
at the wall.
In this paper we describe the first part of a study on the
interaction between particles and wall turbulence. Here the
effects of coherent structures on particle motion and distri-
bution in the wall layer, and on particle entrainment and
deposition, are examined experimentally. The emphasis is on
what happens at, or very close to, the wall. For the most part,
the particle concentration throughout the flow, and in the
wall layer, is low. However, in a few cases of very low shear
rates, the particle concentration near the wall became large
due to sedimentation and a bed several particle diameters
thick formed.
In the second part of the work (Kaftori et aZ.14),the ve-
locity, distribution, and concentration profiles of particles
throughout the boundary layer are discussed. There the focus
of interest is shifted to the behavior of particles away from
the wall. In the third part (Kaftori et aL1’), the effects of
particles on the turbulence wall structures characteristics will
be reported.
Kaftori, Hetsroni, and Banerjee
 Particle recirculation
FIG. 2. The experimental loop.
In interpreting the results we will refer to the wall struc-
tures as funnel vortices (Kaftori et aLa). While the existence
and characteristics of the vortices still require further study, it
was found that this description of fluid motion encompasses
the diverse structures, such as quasistreamwise vortices,
ejections, and sweeps, that have been previously observed in
turbulent boundary layers, and it is convenient to refer to the
underlying motion than to each of its manifestations.
II. THE EXPERIMENTAL FACILITY
The experimental facility (Fig. 2) consisted of a flume,
instrumented with a two-dimensional (2-D) LDA system,
and a flow visualization apparatus using oxygen mi-
crobubbles tracers and high-speed video. The LDA and high-
speed video were synchronized so that the LDA data could
be compared with the visually observed flow patterns around
the probe volume. The tracer particles for the LDA were
titanium dioxide (density 3.5X10” kg/m3), filtered to 0.65
,um, and the solid particles under investigation were polysty-
rene of diameter 100-900 pm. The LDA system was de-
signed with the capability to distinguish between the poly-
styrene and tracer particles using the amplitude
discrimination technique. This enabled real-time measure-
Phys. Fluids, Vol. 7, No. 5, May 1995
Copyright ©2001. All Rights Reserved.
ments of both phases in the same experiment. The details of
the discrimination system are described in Kaftori et aZ.,14
and in Kaftori.16
The flume was horizontal, 4.5 m long, 0.32 m wide, and
0.1 m high. The measuring point was located 2.75 m from
the entrance (x/h-SO, where h is water depth) to ensure
fully developed turbulence. The test section was constructed
of glass to allow flow visualization and high-speed photog-
raphy. Water level in the channel was set by flow restrictors
in the form of an array of a cylinder at the outlet, which
allowed throughflow without significantly disrupting the free
interface or the wall layer. The temperature at the inlet tank
was monitored by a temperature indicator, and was kept con-
stant throughout each experimental run with variations never
exceeding 0.3 “C.
The measuring system consisted of a 2-D, four beam,
two color, differential, laser-Doppler anemometer, operating
in the back, or side, scatter mode. The streamwise and wall-
normal velocity components were measured. The laser
beams were projected into the channel through the side wall
to form a measuring volume of approximately 1175X50 pm.
When the system was operated in the side scatter mode, the
virtual size of the measuring volume was reduced to 90X50
pm by a spatial filter. The front end optics were mounted
Kaftori, Hetsroni, and Banerjee 1097
 Rubber
bellow
Laser
Beams
FIG. 3. Front optics arrangement.
onto a computer-controlled traverse mechanism to allow
measurements across the flow profile. The beams could be
tilted by approximately 3” from the horizontal, using a rotat-
ing mirror, as illustrated in Fig. 3, to allow data acquisition
as close as 25-50 p from the wall and the free interface-
the uncertainty being the width of the measuring volume.
Consequently, the measured vertical velocity component was
not truly wall normal, but rather was tilted by a small
amount. The error introduced by this tilt was of the order of
0.2%, and was ignored. Another source of error, due to tilting
the laser beams, is that two of the beams crossed the side
wall of the channel at different angles. If laser beams cross a
glass surface (i.e., the side wall of the channel) at different
angles, one beam is shifted relative to the other and therefore
each beam has a different pathlength to the focal point, re-
sulting in a distorted probe volume. The error can be reduced
by keeping the glass surface as thin as possible, and by hav-
ing the same medium (i.e., water) on both sides of the sur-
face, rather than two media (i.e., air on one side and water on
the other). This was achieved by constructing a special water
cell at the side wall (Fig. 3). The tilting window of the water
cell could be rotated so that it was always perpendicular to
the optical axis of the laser beams and thus preserved the
same pathlength. By using the water cell the difference in the
pathlength of the beams was smaller then 1% of the length of
the measuring volume.
Flow visualization was done using the oxygen bubble
technique described in Rashidi and Banerjee.17 The anode is
1098 Phys. Fluids, Vol. 7, No. 5, May 1995
Copyright ©2001. All Rights Reserved.
2
L 3
a platinum wire, 50 ,um in diameter, and the cathode is
placed downstream. Pulsed current is applied to the pair and,
as a result, lines of oxygen bubbles form on the wire by
electrolysis. The bubbles are approximately 50 pm in diam-
eter and they are swept off the wire with the flow and serve
as flow tracers.
The bubbles were photographed by a high-speed video
system. When necessary, the video was synchronized with
the LDA system using a small light source, which was trig-
gered by the LDA system at the start of data acquisition, and
was visible on video. In many cases two video cameras were
used to allow two views of the flow.
Regular VHS video was also used in some experiments
to record the general characteristics of particle motion in the
flow.
Polystyrene particles were chosen as the solid phase be-
cause their density is only slightly higher than that of the
water. These particles settle to the bottom and interact with
the wall structures, but are also light enough to respond to
the motion of the fluid and to be entrained and interact with
the main flow. In addition, they are chemically inert in water,
do not erode, do not absorb water, and are available in abun-
dance. The density of the particles was measured by water
displacement, and was found to be 1030-1050 kg/m3. 1050
kgIm3 was taken as a nominal value, as it is the quoted den-
sity by the manufacturer. Three nominal sizes were used:
1.00, 275, and 900 pm, with distributions of 90-106 p,
212-300 ,um, and 850-1000 pm, respectively. Each experi-
Kaftori, Hetsroni, and Banerjee
ment was conducted with particles of only one size. The TABLE I. Experimentalconditions.
nominal diameter of each size was determined as the average
of several random measurements under a microscope. Particles Loading U, h ” u*
R% bd x10-4 (m/s) (mm) (m’/s) X 10-e h/s)
The particles, with the exception of the 100 pm ones,
were captured at the outlet from the flume in a basket filter 4870 none .. . 0.125 31.51 0.808 0.0074
4970 none . .. 0.128 31.36 0.808 0.0074
and recirculated, using a peristaltic pump, into the inlet of . ..
5010 none 0.113 33.5 0.755 0.0067
the channel. At the entrance the particles were introduced at 1.58 0.138 27.35 0.810 0.0085
4660 100
the bottom of the flume through two outlets, symmetric 5120 275 0.56a 0.143 28.41 0.793 0.0086
about the centerline, to ensure uniform distribution across the 5040 900 0.65 0.128 31.71 0.806 Q.0078
channel. The loading ratio was monitored by Wing a known 5080 900 0.88 0.128 32.01 0.807 0.0076
7110 none ... 0.164 32.67 0.754 0.0090
volume with suspension from the paiticle recirculation tubes .. .
7890 none 0.195 31.86 0.787 0.0106
and recording the fill-up time. The particles were then fil- none .‘. 0.204 31.36 0.756 0.0111
8460
tered out, dried, and weighed, and the resulting concentration 8090 275 0.8 0.198 32.06 0.785 0.0111
combined with the known flow rate in the main loop. Repeat 9130 none .. . 0.220 32.81 0.791 0.0124
trials showed variations not exceeding 10%. 9900 none .. . 0.2f14 32.80 0.808 0.0128
10 070 none .I. 0.222 34.33 0.75(? 0.0115
The 100 pm particles were too small to capture, since ...
10 210 none 0.248 33.15 0.805 0.0127
they clogged the basket filter. These particles were allowed 10 420 none ... 0.256 32.90 0.808 0.0127
to recirculate through the loop with the water. In these runs, 9850 100 1.87 0.244 32.41 0.803 0.012%
the tanks were occasionally stirred to prevent sedimentation. 9950 100 2.16 0.246 32.6 0.806 0.0129
10 300 275 1.15 0.249 32.86 0.794 0.133
A. Experiments and procedure 9420 275 2.0 0.227 32.81 0.791 0.0123
10 160 275 f.9 0.247 32.46 0.789 Oh32
Experiments were conducted primarily at Reynolds
9870 900 1.03 0.244 32.55 0.805 0.0132
numbers (Re,, = U,,,h/ v, where U,,, is mean velocity and v is 10 280 900 0.6 0.257 33.05 0.826 0.0132
the kinematic viscosity) of 5000, 10 000, and 14 000. The 9870 900 1.95 0.244 32.6 0.806 0.0135
water level was kept approximately the same in all of the 10 070 900 2.3 0.249 32.5 0.804 0.0135
14 15ci none ... 0.296 37.06 0.775 0.015
experiments, thus the Reynolds number is indicative of the
14 020 none ... 0.294 36.86 0.773 0.015
shear rate in the boundary layer. A total of 33 experiments
i3 660 100 1.87 0.313 34.96 0.801 0.016
were performed, 20 of which were with particles. The 13 930 100 2.16 0.320 35.40 0.813 0.0160
experimental conditions are listed in Table I. Each experi- 14 180 275 0.87 0.322 35.06 0.796 0.0161
ment consisted of measurements at 30-40 traverse positions 14 110 275 1.95 0.320 35.11 0.796 0.0160
across the flow. In most runs, approximately 13 000 data 14 340 900 1.09 0.294 37.76 0.773 0.0155
13 900 900 1.99 0.295 37.61 0.798 0.0155
points were taken at each traverse position.
In the first stage, experiments of particle free flow were aBased on mean flow rate of particles, not considering layers of settled
conducted, and the results were compared to data found in particles.
the literature to ensure that the system was operating prop-
erly and accurately. In the second stage, sets of experiments
with particles were done. A set usually consisted of a se-
The values of u* were compared with values computed
quence of runs with particles of only one size at all three
by the Reynolds stress profile equation (Tennekes and
Reynolds numbers and at the two nominal volumetric load-
Lumley18);
ing ratios of 1 and 2X10-‘. Exceptions to this procedure
we.re the runs at Re,,a5000, where the higher loading ratio ~ dU
could not be achieved with the two larger size particles be- -u’v’$.v -&-=I4
cause particles accumulated in the bed. In addition, the 100
pm particles were used only at the higher loading ratio. ’
and results of both methods were, on the average, within
The friction velocity,
1.5%. This was also true in high-Reynolds-number runs with
particles, where most of the particles were in suspension.
u*= --rw Based on this, it was assumed that Eq. (2) is applicable in the
J P presence of particles.
In some low-Reynolds-number experiments with par-
where Q-,,,is wall shear stress, p is fluid density, U is average ticles, the high concentration near the bottom caused the ve-
velocity at a given elevation, and y is the vertical distance locity profile to be distorted [Fig. 4(b)]. In these cases Eq. (2)
from the wall, was determined, in runs without particles, had to be used to find u * . For consistency, Eq. (2) was used
from the velocity profile near the wall. It was found by fitting for all the experiments with particles in Table I, though the
a first-order polynomial to the curve of U+ vs y + in the difference between values computed by it and values ob-
region O<yf<5 (here u’= Ulu” andy+=yu*lvj, and op- tained by the velocity profile near the wall-when it could be
timizing u ‘*> so that the slope of the curve was closest to used, was small.
unity. At least five measurement points were taken in this The characteristic of the particles are listed in Table II.
range in most runs to ensure high accuracy. Figure 4(a) is a These were defined as follows.
typical result of such a process. The nondimensional particle diameter,

Phys. Fluids, Vol. 7, No. 5, May 1995 Kaftori, Hetsroni, and Banerjee 1099

Copyright ©2001. All Rights Reserved.

 TABLE II. Properties of particles.

a> Property
Nominal
diameter &m) Re,=5000 Re,,=lO 000 Re,= 14 000
4-
100 1.06 1.61 1.88
D+ 275 3.0 4.5 5.5
900 8.66 15.2 17.4
100 7.3x10-4
3- 275 5.5x1o-3 the same the same
Tp (4
Uf :
900 6.ox1o-2
,u” 100 0.065 0.15 0.23
: r,: 275 0.51 1.21 1.77
2- ,-
: 900 4.41 13.58 18.07
:
,o=’
:
a-
l- ,’
.’
,* where p is density and subscripts p and f are particles and
fluid, respectively.
- 6
*. Table III lists the terminal settling velocity of the par-
ticles in quiescent fluid. Two values-are reported. First is the
theoretical settling velocity assuming Stokes flow:
1
5 Us=----
lap d2b
p p- ,qk,
where ,u is the viscosity of the fluid, and g is acceleration
4 due to gravity, The second is the actual settling velocities of
275 and 900 ,ccm particles that were measured in a water
column (the settling velocity of the 100 pm particles could
not be measured, since they took very long to descend in the
3 column, and were strongly affected by thermal streaks). Also
U+ in the table are the corresponding particle Reynolds num-
bers:
2

1 As can be seen in the table, there is good agreement between

the theoretical and experimental values when the particle
Reynolds number is less than unity. For larger particles, on
the other hand, a Stokes flow assumption is incorrect, since it
yields too high a settling velocity. This should be taken into
account when discussing the interaction between particles
and fluid.

III. PARTICLE DISTRIBUTION NEAR THE BOlTOryl

FIG. 4. (a) Velocity profile in the viscous layer without particles, On the bottom of the channel particles tend to form
Re,=14 000. (b) Velocity profile in the viscous layer with 900 ,um par-
ticles, Re,=5000. streaks in the direction of flow. The shape of the streaks
depends on particle size and flow conditions. Some examples
are shown in Fig. 5. At low shear rates the streaks are long,
wide, and massive, and are often several particle layers thick.
dpu*
Df=-.
l.’ ’
TABLE III. Settling velocity and particle Reynolds numbers.
where d, is particle diameter. The particle time constant, i.e.,
relaxation time, assuming Stokes flow, Theoretical
(assuming Stokes Aowi Measured

Nominal diameter
G-m) (2, Rew kk) Rep,,
and the nondimensional particle relaxation time,
100 0.000 32 0.04 ... . ..

f U *2 D+2pp
- -.
275 0.0025 0.86 0.0023 0.79
900 0.026 29.25 0.01 11.25
TP =TP v= 18 pf’

1100 Phys. Fluids, Vol. 7, No. 5, May 1995 Kaftori, Hetsroni, and Banerjee

Copyright ©2001. All Rights Reserved.

FIG. 5. Particle distribution at the bottom of the channel. (a) 100 pm,
Re,,==5000. (b) 275 pm, Re,,+=+5000. (c) 275 pm, Re,J=9000. (d) 900 pm,
Re,,*SOOO. (e) 900 pm, Rqz-=9000.
As shear rate is increased, the particle streaks become shorter
and narrower, as more and more particles are entrained by
the flow, until eventually the streaks disappear altogether. It
is interesting to note that the shape of the streaks formed by
both the 100 and 275 pm particles at Re,-5000 is very
similar. This will be discussed later.
Video movies indicate that the particle streaks are
formed by the action of high-speed fluid regions. These re-
gions, which are most likely funnel vortices (see Kaftori
et aLZ3), sweep along the bottom, pushing particles out of
the way. This creates an avenue of particles to the sides of
the vortex path. If the particles are small, in the sense that the
vortices are sufficiently energetic to entrain them, then most
will be entrained while only a few will be pushed aside.
Consequently, the streaks that form do not contain many par-
ticles. If the particles are large, then few will be entrained,
and most will be pushed aside, forming massive streaks. Fig-
ure 6, taken from Kaftori et al.,’ shows how 275 ,um par-
ticles at the bottom of the channel are dispersed by a sweep.
In this (top) view the motion somewhat resembles a street
cleaner, and it is consistent with a projected image of the
action of a fast moving streamwise vortex. On the other
hand, 900 ,um particles at Re,=+SOOO were too heavy to be
entrained. These particles were pushed aside by the high-
speed sweeps and formed streaks, as illustrated in Fig. 7, also
from Kaftori et al.”
It appears that the particle streaks coincide with regions
of low-speed fluid. This was also found by Rashidi et al.,l
Pedinotti et al,” and Hetsroni and Rozenblit.7 In the video,
the particles in the streaks generally move slower than par-
ticles outside of the streaks. In addition, most of the 275 pm
Phys. Fluids, Vol. 7, No. 5, May 1995
Copyright ©2001. All Rights Reserved.
PIG. 6. Bottom to top. A funnel vortex blowing particles away in a rotary
motion. Plow is upward. The symbol in the photograph indicates the trajec-
tory and angular rotation. Particles are 275 pm, Re,- 10 000. Time be-
tween frames: 8 ms. The sketch illustrates the apparent projected motion in
top view.
particles near the wall, which were detected by the LDA,
were surrounded by fluid with a lower-than-average velocity.
This was more pronounced at Rehw14 000, where 75% of
the particles were found in a low-velocity environment, com-
pared with Re, -10 000, where only 58% were (at
Re,=5000 the particle streaks were too dense to enable
effective velocity measurements of the fluid surrounding in-
dividual particles). The velocity of the surrounding fluid was
taken as the average of all fluid velocity data points within
five wall units of a particle, as illustrated in Fig. 8. The
distance from each particle was computed from the particle
velocity and the time between the data samples immediately
preceding and following that particle in the LDA data time
series (Fig. 8). The 100 ,um particles could also be seen to
form streaks on video but the streaks usually contained only
a few particles. The 900 pm particles also formed streaks on
video, but there the streaks were usually less distinct than
with the smaller particles. In general, these particles seemed
to be more evenly distributed, as illustrated in Fig. 5(e).
These data imply that the tendency of particles to ag-
glomerate into streaks may be a function of particle size.
While streaks formed with all particle sizes, the ones of in-
termediate size, in this case D ’ = 5.5 (7p = 1.77), tended to
form streaks more than larger or smaller ones.
Turning back to Fig. 5, it can be seen that at Re,=SOOO
Kaftori, Hetsroni, and Banerjee 1101
 I$+ At I 5 r/u*

p xxxx xx Y
I II I I I t
1 At, At, At3 At, Ats Ate

FIG. 8. Jllustration of the definition of terms in the “fluid surrounding” a

particle (P). “ X “s indicate LDA fluid data points and “t” is time. The same
was done with data points preceding the particle in the data sequence.

the streaks of the 100 and 275 ,~tn particles are long. In fact,
they extend almost continuously throughout the length of the
channel. The reason is that once particles settle in streaks at
this shear rate, the flow is not powerful enough to entrain
many particles, and the local concentration near the wall be-
comes very high. Consequently, the streaks become massive
to the point where the flow structures cannot disperse them.
When this occurs a vortex may cause a discontinuity in a
streak, shift a streak off the streamwise axis by a small
amount, split a streak into two new ones, or cause two
streaks to merge, but seldom is it powerful enough to cause a
streak to disappear altogether, as at higher Reynolds num-
bers. Many other times a vortex can be seen to “ride” on top
of a particle streak and displace particles from the top layer,
but without changing the overall shape of the streak. In any
case, the visual impression of an overall continuity of the
streaks is maintained.
As the Reynolds number or, equivalently in this case,
with fixed water depth, the shear rate, is increased for a given
fluid-particle combination, more particles are entrained and
the streaks begin to shrink in size until they become similar
to Fig. 5(c). If the shear rate is increased further, more par-
ticles are entrained and the streaks disappear because there
are not enough particles at the wall.
If, on the other hand, the shear rate is reduced, the par-
ticle streaks progress downstream at a slower and slower rate
while becoming more and more massive. At some point their
progression stops altogether and they agglomerate into
dunes, shaped like fat domes, which roll downstream at an
extremely slow pace.

IV. ENTRAINMENT AND RESUSPENSION

PIG. 7. Bottom to top, Progression of three high-speed regions along the
bottom and the formation of particle streaks along their path. Plow is up-
ward. Horseshoes indicate the starting point of the vortices, 900 pm par-
ticles, Re,m5OOO. ‘Die between frames: 0.17 s.
Large-scale wall structures are considered to be an im-
portant factor in particle deposition and resuspension. In or-
der to determine the role of the funnel vortices in these pro-
cesses, the number of particles inside vortices, the
trajectories of these particles, and their normal (u ‘) and
streamwise (U ‘) fluctuating velocity components were exam-
ined and compared to particles outside the vortices. The
structures themselves were detected in the LDA data by
means of a conditional sampling method, which combines a
version of the u ‘u ’ level technique and the TKE technique.
In this method a Row structure is said to occur if either the
shear product (i.e., instantaneous Reynolds stress; see Rob-

1102 Phys. Fluids, Vol. 7, No. 5, May 1995 Kaftori, Hetsroni, and Banerjee

Copyright ©2001. All Rights Reserved.

 0.02

1
0
2
x
7G
s-
0.01

Particle size [/.m~]

FIG. 9. Ratio of particle fluxes inside and outside funnel vortices. 3 of particles J of particles 100 pm 900 &ml
with e-0 with v’<O

inson et al.19), or the two-dimensional turbulent kinetic en-
ergy, rise above some threshold. For full details, see
Kaftori16 and Kaftori et al.’ All values reported in this sec-
tion were measured at an elevation of y + ~30.
The flux of particles inside funnel vortices~was higher
than in the surrounding fluid, where the term “particle flux”
refers to the number of particles counted at the measuring
point per unit time. W ith 100 pm particles the average flux
in the midst of vortices was 20% higher than outside and
with 900 pm it was nearly double, as depicted in Fig. 9. Both
were independent of Reynolds number. It must also be
pointed out that the vortices only occupied the measuring
point approximately one-third of the time, Of the particles
found inside vortices, most were with a positive vertical ve-
locity (ZJ‘>O), indicating an upward trajectory, away from
the wall layer (Fig. 10). The ratio of upward to downward
moving particles is close to even for small particles and in-
creases with particle size.
The average vertical velocity of particles inside
vortices was usually higher than outside. For particles with
an upward trajectory the average ratio of u ’ inside to outside
was 1.8. For particles with a downward trajectory the ratio
was 1.6. This is illustrated in Fig. 11. These ratios were vir-
tually independent of Reynolds number or particle size. The
actual value of the vertical velocity fluctuations (rms) of the
100 v particles was more than an order of magnitude
70
;?
3
P the flow axis because of the streamwise rotation of the funnel
‘Z
s
a 60
2 ratio, trajectories of particle and fluid, and the kinetic ener-
?i
I
;;I
.t:
t=
M
50
Particle size [pm]
FIG. 10. Percentage of particles with an upward trajectory inside funnel
vortices.
FIG. 11. Characteristic particle velocities at y+--30. The values shown are
typical velocities, not representing a specific experiment.
higher than the theoretical settling velocity in still fluid
(Table III). W ith the 900 pm ones, the rms was of the same
order as the measured settling velocity. This is also shown in
Fig. 11. These data indicate that close to the wall the vertical
motion of small particles was mainly controlled by the tur-
bulence fluctuations, whereas with large particles gravita-
tional settling was a more dominant factor.
Finally, the average fluctuating streamwise velocity com-
ponents of upward moving particles (i.e., ~lV,,a) inside the
vortices was of the order of the negative rms value of the
fluid at y + ~30. For similar particles outside the vortices,
this average velocity component was nearly zero. This sug-
gests that ascending particles in the vortices originate near
the wall, where the streamwise velocity is small. By the time
funnel
particles are lifted up to the point of measurement, they have
not had time to accelerate to the surrounding velocity at that
elevation, and therefore their streamwise velocity is rela-
tively small. The average streamwise velocity of particles
outside of the vortices, on the other hand, is much closer to
that of the fluid, indicating that they have been in suspension
long enough to adapt.
Observations of particle motion combined with oxygen
microbubbles visualization also indicate that funnel vortices
are the dominant entrainment mechanism. When a vortex
passes over a particle, it may lift it off the wall, provided that
the vortex is energetic enough for the given particle size. The
trajectory of the particle at this stage may be at an angle to
vortex (Fig. 6). At this point, the particle may proceed in a
number of ways, depending on the combination of density
gies and inertia of the particle and the fluid. One option is
that the particle is simply lifted up with the vortex all the
way to the outer region, where it may break away from the
vortex due to inertia or gravity, or simply be left in suspen-
sion when the vortex dissipates in the flow. Another option is
that the particle is tossed sideways and/or upward, away
from the vortex that lifted it. This particle may now settle
back down or be engulfed by a neighboring vortex. A third
possibility is that the particle is lifted up, completes a full

Phys. Fluids, Vol. 7, No. 5, May 1995 Kaftori, Hetsroni, and Banerjee 1103

Copyright ©2001. All Rights Reserved.


PIG. 12. Top to bottom. The motion of particles in a funnel vortex. Particle
“A” was on a downward trajectory. When it enters the vortex it is initially
raised upward somewhat, but then continues with the same vortex loop in an
arc toward the bottom. Particle “B” is picked off the bottom and is continu-
ously lifted without returning downward. In point “C” the vortex loop
touches the wall and blows particles off. 275 ,um particles, Rq= 6700.
1104 Phys. Fluids, Vol. 7, No. 5, May 1995
Copyright ©2001. All Rights Reserved.
PIG. 13. Possible trajectories of particles across a funnel vortex. ParticIe
“A” is descending-the equivalent of particle “A” in Fig. 12. Particle “B”
is lifted from the wall. Dashed lines illustrate possible progressions.
loop, and comes back toward the wall with the same vortex,
at which stage it may be deposited at the wall or be lifted
upward again.
Some of these situations can be seen in the sequence of
photographs in Fig. 12, which shows a vortex passing over a
layer of 275 pm particles at Reh = 6700. The particle de-
noted by “A,” for example, was entrained into the vortex at
approximately the elevation shown. Before it was entrained,
the particle was on a downward trajectory. After it was en-
trained, it was initially lifted up somewhat in the vortex, but
was then carried back down. When it came close to the wall
it started to hover horizontally above it and disappeared from
view. The particle denoted by “B,” on the other hand, was
picked up from the wall. It was then lifted up and did not
show a tendency to return to the wall. This particle was
eventually carried up into the outer flow. Also shown in the
figure is how particles are picked up off the wall by a part of
the vortex (“C”) that touches down.
An interesting characteristic, which is demonstrated in
Fig. 12, as well as in other video sequences, is that the par-
ticle rate of motion in the wall normal direction may be
reduced while it is inside a vortex. In other words, a particle
may be captured by a vortex and travel with it parallel to the
wall for relatively long distances, rather than continue what-
ever vertical motion it might have had initially. Particle “A”
in Fig. 12 is an example of such a case, where a particle that
was initially on a downward trajectory is caught by a vortex
and carried horizontally in the direction of flow. Eventually
the particle did seem to reach the wall, but in doing so it
covered a longer streamwise distance than it would have had
it not been caught in the vortex.
In essence, it appears that the motion of particles through
the vortices can often be described as a holding pattern.
Some possible trajectories are sketched in Fig. 13. A particle
may enter a vortex at some rate of ascent or descent. Inside
the vortex the particle acquires a trajectory, which is, on the
average, more parallel to the wall, while it is twirled around
in the vortex. At this stage the average rate of motion toward
or away from the wall slows down considerably or may even
be reversed. In other words, the particle is being delayed by
the vortex. After the particle leaves the vortex it acquires a
new rate of ascent or descent that is close to the original rate.
One important implication of such motion may be that par-
titles spend more time inside funnel vortices in the lower
part of the boundary layer than elsewhere, and therefore the
number of particles found there may be higher than ex-
petted. This issue is discussed in Paper II of this study.
Kaftori, Hetsroni, and Banerjee
V. DISCUSSION
The data presented above suggest that most aspects of
particle motion and behavior in the turbulent boundary layer
are affected by coherent wall structures. If funnel-shaped
vortices are conceived to be as the dominant type of struc-
ture, then a consistent interpretation of the experimental ob-
servations is possible.
It appears, from video and LDA data, that the structures
are the primary entrainment mechanism. An overall picture
of the particle entrainment and deposition cycle, with rela-
tion to the structures, may be as follows.
When a vortex is developing over a particle that is at the
wall, the particle may be lifted and entrained into the vortex
(Fig. 12). The particle then travels with the vortex for some
distance, until it eventually breaks away due to its inertia or
because the vortex has dissipated in the flow. The average
wall normal velocity of the particle inside the vortex is
higher than that of particles outside the vortices (Fig. ll),
probably as a result of the strong rotational motion in the
vortices. Consequently, particles in the vortices have a higher
probability of reaching higher elevations and being distrib-
uted throughout the flow.
Once released, the particle begins to settle under gravity.
A settling particle may simply descend all the way to the
wall, or it may be captured by another vortex and travel with
it until it is released again. Since vortices are virtually the
only place where particles that are rising from the wall can
be found, while settling particles can be found both inside
and outside vortices, the flux of particles inside is higher, and
the majority of particles in the vortices have a trajectory
away from the wall (Figs. 9 and 10). Of the settling particles
outside of the vortices, large ones settle fast and are not
much affected by turbulence fluctuations. Therefore there are
few large particles in suspension. Small particles, on the
other hand, settle slowly, and their motion is much more
influenced by random fluctuations. Consequently, there are
many of them in suspension outside the vortices, resulting in
smaller ratios in the figures.
It is likely that the funnel vortices also aid in particle
deposition by bringing particles toward the wall. As men-
tioned earlier, the wall normal velocity of particles with a
downward trajectory was higher inside the vortices than out-
side them (Fig. 11). Thus, particles inside the vortices will
reach the wall layer faster than particles which are simply
settling under gravity. In addition, these particles will have a
better chance to penetrate the wall layer and be deposited at
the wall.
In this context, it is worthwhile noting that in some cases
sedimentation due to gravity could not account for the large
number of particles near the bottom. In this work the 100 ,um
particles entered the channel from the inlet tank in a homo-
geneous suspension. Nonetheless, a distribution similar to
Fig. 5(a), where most of the particles are settled at the bot-
tom, was established within a short distance into the channel.
For these particles the terminal settling velocity in still fluid
is of the order of 3X10-j m/s (Table III). At this velocity a
much longer time would be required for particles to accumu-
late near the bottom+ven if no resuspension mechanism
were to exist. A process where the funnel vortices assist in
Phys. Fluids, Vol. 7, No. 5, May 1995
Copyright ©2001. All Rights Reserved.
bringing particles from the outer flow to the wall layer may
explain this phenomenon.
The fact that the vortices assist in particle deposition is
supported by the studies of McLaughlin,12 and of Brooke
et all3 The eddies and fluid motion described there are con-
sistent with the description of funnel vortices.
When particles that are at the wall are not entrained by a
passing vortex, they are often pushed aside by it and form
streaks along the path of the vortex (Figs. 5-7). The data
found here suggest that the tendency of particles to agglom-
erate into streaks may be related to their size, where particles
of the intermediate size tend to form streaks more than others
(although particle streaks were observed with all sizes). A
similar trend was found by Pedinotti et aL6 by direct numeri-
cal simulation of horizontal channel flow, and by Squires and
Eaton2’ in simulations of isotropic turbulence. This behavior
may be due to inertial effects. Small particles, having low
inertia and short relaxation times, can follow the fluid motion
and will therefore be distributed more evenly throughout the
flow. In contrast, once large particles are propelled in some
direction by an eddy, they will continue their motion for a
relatively long time because of their high inertia and long
relaxation time. In doing so, they have a good chance of
crossing through the quiescent regions where streaks~usually
form, and into neighboring eddies. These particles will also
have a lesser tendency to concentrate in streaks. Intermediate
particles, on the other hand, will be pushed out of the way of
an approaching eddy because their relaxation time is too long
for them to follow its motion. However, since their inertia is
not very high, they will not be thrown far and will end up in
streaks along the path of the eddy.
Finally, one additional point should be mentioned. It ap-
pears that particles tend to concentrate inside funnel vortices
more than elsewhere (Fig. 9). This fact may have an effect on
the overall particle distribution in the flow and affect the
characteristics of the structures themselves. This will be dis-
cussed in the other parts of this work.
VI. CONCLUDING REMARKS
The measurements and observations in this study indi-
cate that coherent wall structures are the dominant factor
affecting particle motion near a solid boundary in turbulent
flow, as well as deposition and entrainment. While this was
suggested earlier by several researchers, this work provides
statistical and visual data, which confirms these hypotheses.
The study also provides an assessment of the mechanisms
that affect the motion of particles in the boundary layer, and
the entrainment and deposition processes.
The behavior of particles in the wall region appear to be
consistent with the dominant underlying structures being
funnel vortices. The vortices, being high-speed regions rela-
tive to the fluid in the viscous layer, sweep along the wall,
pushing particles out of the way. In doing so they create
conditions where particles may be entrained if they are light
enough. If the particles are too heavy to be entrained, then
they are pushed aside and form particle streaks, which are, in
fact, avenues along the sides of the paths traced by the vor-
tices.
Kaftori, Hetsroni, and Banerjee 1105
 The effects of the wall structures on particles is not con-
fined to the wall region. Rather, the characteristics of the
motion imposed by these structures are evident in the veloc-
ity and distribution of particles throughout the flow. These
topics are discussed in Paper II of this study.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We would like to express our gratitude to the Electric
Power Research Institute for support of this project under
Grant No. DE-FG3-85ER13314, and to the National Science
Foundation, Grant No. CTS88-22056.
‘M. Rashidi, G. Hetsroni, and S. Banejee, “Particle-turbulence interaction
in a boundary layer,” Int. .I. Multiphase Flow 16, 93.5 (1990).
‘D. Kaftori, G. Hetsroni, and S. Banejee, “Funnel-shaped vertical struc-
tures in wall turbulence,” Phys. Fluids 6, 3035 (1994).
“D. Kaftori, G. Hetsroni, and S. Banejee, “Funnel-shaped vortices--Large
scale dominant structures in bounded turbulent shear flows,” ASME FED
188, 13 (1994).
“A. A. Townsend, The Structure of Turbulent Shear Flow, 2nd ed. (Cam-
bridge University Press, Cambridge, 1976).
‘A. J. Grass, “Structural features of turbulent flow over smooth and rough
boundaries,” J. Fluid Mech. 50, 233 (1971).
“S. Pedinotti, G. Mariotti and S. Banerjee, “Direct numerical simulation of
particle behaviour in the wall region of turbulent flows in horizontal chan-
nels,” Int. J. Multiphase Flow 18, 927 (1993).
7G. Hetsroni and R. Rozenblit, “Heat transfer to a liquid solid mixture in a
flume,” Int. I. Multiphase Flow 20, 671 (1994).
‘5. W. Cleaver and B. Yates, “Mechanism of detachment of colloid particles
1106 Phys. Fluids, Vol. 7, No. 5, May 1995
Copyright ©2001. All Rights Reserved.
from a flat substrate in turbulent flow,” J. Colloid. Interface Sci. 44, 464
(1973).
9B. M. Sumer and B. Gguz, “Particle motion near the bottom in turbulent
flow in an open channel,” J. Fluid Mech. 86, 109 (1978).
l”B . P. K. Yung, H. Merry, and T. R. Bott, “The roll of turbulent bursts in
particle re-entrainment in aqueous systems,” Chem. Eng. Sci. 44, 873
(1989).
*‘J. W. Cleaver and B. Yates, “A sub layer model for the deposition of
particles from a turbulent flow,” Chem. Eng. Sci. 30, 983 (1975).
“5. B. McLaughlin, “Aerosol particle deposition in numerically simulated
channel flow,” Phys. Fluids A 1, 1211 (1989).
13J.W. Brooke, K. Kontomatis, T. J. Hanratty, and J. B. McLaughlin, “Tur-
bulent deposition and trapping of aerosols at a wall,” Phys. Fluids A 4,
825 (1992).
r4D. Kaftori, G. Hetsroni, and S. Banerjee, “Particle behavior in the turbu-
lent boundary layer. II. Velocity and distribution profiles,” Phys. Fluids 7,
1107 (1995).
I’D. Kaftori, G. Hetsroni, and S. Banerjee, “The effects of particles on wall
turbulence,” in preparation.
“D. Kaftori “Structures in the turbulent boundary layer and their interac-
tion with particles,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Santa
Barbara, 1993.
r7M. Rashidi and S. Banejee, ‘Turbulence structure in free-surface channel
flows,” Phys. Fluids 31, 2491 (1988).
r*H. Termekes and J. L. Lumley, A First Course in Turbulence (MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA, 1972).
“S . K . Robinson 7 S . J. Kline, and P. R. Spalart, “A review of quasi-coherent
structures in a numerically simulated turbulent boundary layer,” NASA
Report No. 102191, 1989.
mK. D. Squires and J. K. Eaton, “Preferential concentration of particles by
turbulence.,” Phys Fluids A 3, 1169 (1991).
Kaftori, Hetsroni, and Banerjee